Jared wrote. I'm only showing three spins here, beyond the axial. I've never made it beyond three.

I don't understand where you're coming from to be honest. Perhaps you could sketch your model sometime or something?

Are you saying that prior to the electron level, a large enough photon (with enough spins, I mean) could/would begin recycling other photons? As in an ultraviolet photon is recycling charge in a similar but perhaps lesser amount per time-interval, relative to an electron?

Airman. In a word, yes. Absolutely.

This vimeo view is perfect.

This is an image of an AX. A b-photon with a radius of one, and an axial spin A - as shown by the yellow arrow arc out and back into the page - is also spinning about a point on the b-photon’s surface, (apparently the b-photon’s north pole), counter clockwise in this view, as indicated by the red arrow arc. The blue vertical arrow indicates the b-photon’s overall linear direction through space.

According to the stacked spin model, this b-photon has a radius of two, the extended mass beyond that of the b-photon is the product of motion alone. A well-placed and sufficiently energetic photon collision could either strip the b-photon of its x-spin or convert the AX into an AXY by adding a new end-over-end spin about a y-axis.

For the sake of the stacked spin model, I’ve accepted the notion that a single b-photon can create three independent (mutually orthogonal) spins; however, my imagination stops there. Nothing higher – such as the possibility of 10 nested spins encapsulated by a single dancing b-photon - makes any sense to me. Why not say the entire universe is a single, very energetic, b-photon. Sorry, of course the proton scale, including the neutron, are the largest b-photons we know.

By definition, all charged particles recycle charge. We know protons, neutrons and electrons recycle charge, but why stop there? Of course all large photons – including ultraviolet and infra-red recycle charge. Well then, if the stacked spin model is intended to model those charged particles, where is the charge? How can we model charged particles without charge?

We should ask - How can we add charge to the stacked spin model?

Possible Rule 1, applicable to all b-photons with a single end-over-end spin or larger. The rule states, additional spin levels may not be added until the current spin level is ‘charged’. Stated slightly differently - all current spin level charge positions need to be filled before the particle can add a new spin level.

Here’s what I believe the AX looks like when it’s charged. We are looking directly into the AX’s north pole. The top level x-spin is ‘filled’ with two counter-rotating photons: our original b-photon and its current anti-partner. They are shown with their north spin poles in contact with each other. They are both spinning in a CCW circle inside the x-spin that was previously occupied by the original b-photon alone. The second photon may have gently settled into its current location – in spin balance with the b-photon, without disturbing the existing spin, or perhaps the collision with the second anti-photon was what formed the AX in the first place. I believe the two photons together double the amount of potential collision locations that can form the next spin level. Note that either of the photons may be lost and a new one might be gained as a result of random photon collisions. At the AX stage, that is the definition of recycling, a slow change out of either of the two AX photons.

The photon travels at c because it doesn't collide with other photons. How can you introduce enough collisions to a photon to create recycling and still have it travel at c? If photons also recycle charge, then what is the difference between a photon and an electron or proton? If the photon is colliding with these recycled photons, then how could it maintain its spins? I don't see how you could build up to an electron, or even larger photons, with all of these collisions going on. I could probably agree that very large photons, such as an X-ray, might recycle a little bit, but not enough to register compared to a proton.

You mention that the 2 photons together mean that there is more potential for a collision, but that is actually a problem, not a solution. We need photons to avoid most collisions and we need just the right collisions to create a new spin level, which are rare.

You have the photons glued together but you have no mechanism to do so. The north pole that you talk about is not like the pole of a charged particle. It has no apparent attraction, which is caused by having less charge emission from those areas.

Are you trying to explain mass as being more BPhotons clumped together?

LongtimeAirman wrote:For the sake of the stacked spin model, I’ve accepted the notion that a single b-photon can create three independent (mutually orthogonal) spins; however, my imagination stops there. Nothing higher – such as the possibility of 10 nested spins encapsulated by a single dancing b-photon - makes any sense to me.

I admit that determining if spins stack gypergyroscopically can be a bit of a stretch. The motions seems contrary to motions we see around us in some ways - a nested gyroscope makes sense to us since there are armatures involved to contain it, for example. A stacked spin photon is basically the reverse - nothing contains it, except the next collision(s).

But if you admit that the first three stacks work, then the same motion is involved with all higher ones too. So the motion in and of itself is NOT outside your imagination, since you already imagined it. We all have imagined it, I'm just trying to image it so we can better analyze if it's possible, feasible, and perhaps even actually real. I think it is. But that's not to say we can't strive for harder, cleaner evidence.

Miles gives us a text description. Nevyn gives us a mathematical depiction. I'm kinda trying to go into that halfway point where both are involved, as a way to analyze and track the motions as they happen.

But what makes you think that the additional stack "sets" are not feasible but the first one is? I'm curious about that. Bolded just to let you know it's a genuine question, not because I'm shouting in my head.

So far the only argument you have for this theory is "Of course". You kinda just assume your premise and then state it as a given. What evidence do we have that ultraviolet or infrared photons are charged? None. We have every evidence that they are not charged, as far as I'm aware. They are always claimed to be charge-neutral, in both the mainstream and in Miles theory, and not neutral in the way a neutron is considered neutral. This means they are not emitting charge. They aren't large enough to "scoop" charge, and their radius isn't large enough to become recursive the way an electron's is.

We can tell this is true because ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma-ray photons still travel at light speed c.

If a larger radius is only achieved by adding photons to an existing photon cluster, does the electron consist then of 12 photons? Does the proton consist of 16 photons? Or are you doubling the amount of photons in the cluster each time, to achieve the next stacked spin? If so, how could that last photon that (somehow) lands in place perfectly going to impart enough photons to cause the next stacked spin to begin? It would have to move at least three more of its own same-mass selves, and in a vector that would somehow apply to all 3 (or more) at the exact same time.

12 photons in any contacting configuration is still smaller in radius than the electron, you see. The radius doubles with every stack. So by your logic, does the amount of photons also double? So would an electron then be formed by a cluster of 2,048 photons? Is the proton then actually just a cluster of 32,768 photons? Are you adding a photon to each photon in the spin cluster to achieve the next stacked spin level?

What "glues" them all together? Gravity at this level isn't tremendously powerful, but wouldn't that cause orbits and not a "gluing" effect?

Some will say, “Then why doesn't the nucleus dissolve in that case? If no charge is running through it, what is holding it together?” Three things.One, we still have gravity, which the mainstream has mismeasured at the quantum level by 10^22. http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.htmlTwo, we still have charge surrounding the nucleus like a powerful atmosphere. It supplies an external pressure.Three, I assume that although the main charge streams have been broken, other minor ones persist. For instance, if we break that main line of charge, the nucleus can still channel through those neutrons on the south pole.So if we went to 90 degrees and applied a current in the right way (from the south pole), we could force some amount of anticharge through the Graphene. The Graphene won't be completely inert, it just won't like our original current plugged in from the side.

True, but a nucleus is not a photon - it's billions of times larger and thus gravity plays a much greater role at the nuclear level than it does at the quantum level, just as it does at the macroscale. Mismeasured, yes, but that doesn't change how gravity works fundamentally just because the mainstream mismeasured it. I didn't mismeasure it, you see - they did. And photons move so fast that for one to "catch" another one would, again, cause an orbital motion, not a stickiness or "glue".

At the quantum level, charge repulsion is still much more powerful than gravity. It's only when you go up in scale that gravity trumps charge. We know this is true because of the nucleus itself, as well - the proton repels the neutron and electron, and other protons. If gravity were stronger than charge at this level, the nucleons would also be stuck together edge to edge. They are not.

So if gravity at the nuclear scale doesn't trump charge, there's no way it would do so at radii a billion times smaller either. Granted, these lone photons aren't emitting charge - but they still have to obey the laws of motion, momentum, and inertia. Two photons travelling alongside each other with identical or mirrored spins can happen, but what would cause them to revolve around each other and not repel each other upon contact? We're talking about a lot of finessing there to make that work, and the Universe has no mechanism to finesse such a situation other than a random possibility out of trillions of other possible motions. In LTA's theory, only one possible motion out of ALL of them could cause photons to "cluster". In Miles' theory, as I understand it through Nevyn and myself, a great many motions can cause stacked spins but also all other collisions are fine too. A new spin can occur at any time, if the vectors are correct, and we have a multitude of vectors that can be correct. LTA only has one at any given time, an extremely unlikely coincidence at that.

Statement. The stacked spin model doesn’t include any charge recycling, nor does it explain how charge recycling occurs.

Goal. If we can, let’s add charge recycling to the stacked spin model.

Possible solution. Rule 1, applicable to all b-photons with a single end-over-end spin or larger. The rule states, additional spin levels may not be added until the current spin level is ‘charged’.

Example. I showed and described a possible ‘charged’ AX. I include it again below.

\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////

I consider Nevyn’s Stacked Spin apps to be the stacked spin model.

Nevyn, as you and I know, I’ve objected to your stacked spin model many times, also please know I am not attacking you. For the record, we all know your stacked spin apps are awesome sauce – professional, well-made simulations https://www.nevyns-lab.com, https://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/spin-apps.php. I acknowledge and apologize for all the grief I’ve no doubt given you on this subject.

////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\

For the time being, I’ll assume most ambient photons are b-photons. I believe that spinning photons can come together and remain in sustained contact as long as both photons are joined at their spin poles. Gravity at the photon scale holds them together, there’s no photon emission field to prevent it.

Here’s my proposed ‘charged’ AX again. We are viewing AX perpendicularly to the top level x-spin which is ‘filled’ with a proton/antiproton spin pair (CCW red arrow arc). The yellow arrow arcs show each photon axial rotation, the photon and anti-photon are in contact at their north poles. The blue vector shows the AX forward direction – positive z – up in this view - at light speed.

Charge recycling. Incoming photons occasionally hit the charged AX. Here are a few of the charge recycling outcomes: 1. One incoming photon knocks one of the two A1 photons out of the Ax, and two photons are ‘emitted’, the A1 knocked out of the AX and the incomer that knocked it out. I’ll assuming the single photon continues the end-over-end x-spin until; 2. another incoming photon manages to collide at the right spot and replaces the missing A1 and so charges the AX with two x-spinners again, at which time the charge recycling count would be one incoming photon and no emitted photon; or 3. The AX single b-photon is exposed, another well placed collision may strip the A1 of its x-spin. 4. One incoming photon manages to replace one of the two original A1 photons, the recycling charge count would then be one incoming photon and one emitted photon. 5. One incoming photon converts the charged AX to, say, an AXY, and at the same time the incoming photon is emitted.

I’d be happy to discuss alternatives.

\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////

Nevyn. The photon travels at c because it doesn't collide with other photons. How can you introduce enough collisions to a photon to create recycling and still have it travel at c? Airman. I described charge recycling by the AX in my previous paragraph. I don’t see how a linear velocity of c changes it. The direction of AX’s travel does affect the incoming photons it will receive in that if an AX is traveling c in the positive z-direction as shown, then most incoming and energetic collisions would arrive from the positive z-direction. Collisions from the negative z direction should be of lowest energy.

Nevyn. If photons also recycle charge, then what is the difference between a photon and an electron or proton?Airman. Clearly, I do not consider a charge recycling AX to be recycling ever smaller photons. The AX consists of two photons. Recycling means that an incoming photon will replace one of the two AX, A1 photons, which is emitted during the collision exchange.Incoming charge causes some existing charge to be emitted. Charge channeling through electrons and protons involve charge channels with much larger numbers of incoming and emitted photons. A photon is roughly a thousandth the size of the electron and a billionth the size of a proton. Charge channeling through the proton is nuclear, I imagine a charged AX may coast along right through a proton without losing its charge.

Nevyn. If the photon is colliding with these recycled photons, then how could it maintain its spins?Airman. In the AX I’ve described, I don’t see axial spin stripping as any sort of a deal breaker, it’s another possible charge recycling event.

Nevyn. I don't see how you could build up to an electron, or even larger photons, with all of these collisions going on.Airman. I doubt you would be asking the same questions given my answers to you thus far. My provisional rule of requiring a top spin level to be charged should be true for electrons and protons, but it wouldn’t affect the major charge channeling characteristics through those large charged particles.

Nevyn. I could probably agree that very large photons, such as an X-ray, might recycle a little bit, but not enough to register compared to a proton.Airman. All charged particles must recycle any photon that happens to collide with it; the charged particle tends to emit the same number of photons it receives.

Nevyn. You mention that the 2 photons together mean that there is more potential for a collision, but that is actually a problem, not a solution. We need photons to avoid most collisions and we need just the right collisions to create a new spin level, which are rare.Airman. That begs additional discussion. I imagine the two AX A1 photons deliver collision forces very effectively. For example, consider two balls and a croquet mallet. An incoming photon – the mallet - easily knocks off the photon at the far side of the collision location.

Nevyn. You have the photons glued together but you have no mechanism to do so. Airman. Gravity. I give Jared a more expanded answer.

Nevyn. The north pole that you talk about is not like the pole of a charged particle. It has no apparent attraction, which is caused by having less charge emission from those areas.Airman. True, a photon’s north pole may be just a spin axis point, a point on the photon with the least amount of surface velocity. When joined at their poles, I don’t believe there’s enough differential spin motion between the two photons to overcome the mutual gravitational attraction between them.

Nevyn. Are you trying to explain mass as being more BPhotons clumped together?Airman. The stacked spin model looks to me to be the equivalent of the charged particle’s size – thus corresponding to gravity mass. I’m trying to introduce recycling charge density into the stacked spin model corresponding to density mass.

////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\

Jared. But if you admit that the first three stacks work, then the same motion is involved with all higher ones too. So the motion in and of itself is NOT outside your imagination, since you already imagined it. We all have imagined it, I'm just trying to image it so we can better analyze if it's possible, feasible, and perhaps even actually real. I think it is. But that's not to say we can't strive for harder, cleaner evidence. … But what makes you think that the additional stack "sets" are not feasible but the first one is?Airman. You misunderstood me. True, I originally accepted that the first three b-photon spins might exist for the sake of argument, then accepting them all is a consequence. I now reject the idea that a bphoton can embody more than a single spin. Please note my proposed solution involves just the top spin level.

Jared. So far the only argument you have for this theory is "Of course". You kinda just assume your premise and then state it as a given. What evidence do we have that ultraviolet or infrared photons are charged? None. We have every evidence that they are not charged, as far as I'm aware. They are always claimed to be charge-neutral, in both the mainstream and in Miles theory, and not neutral in the way a neutron is considered neutral. This means they are not emitting charge. They aren't large enough to "scoop" charge, and their radius isn't large enough to become recursive the way an electron's is.Airman. I beg to differ, I’m making a better case than that. I’m attributing charge to recycling photons. I’ve clarified charge recycling at the AX scale as involving individual photons. Any charged particle at any scale must emit photons after receiving them. Of course all charged particles are charged. I'd put the burden of proof on you. If it is not true that all spin levels are charged, at what spin level do charged particles become charged? The electron scale? The Proton? Why would some higher spin states be charged and not the lower spin levels?

Jared. If a larger radius is only achieved by adding photons to an existing photon cluster, does the electron consist then of 12 photons? Does the proton consist of 16 photons? Or are you doubling the amount of photons in the cluster each time, to achieve the next stacked spin? If so, how could that last photon that (somehow) lands in place perfectly going to impart enough photons to cause the next stacked spin to begin? It would have to move at least three more of its own same-mass selves, and in a vector that would somehow apply to all 3 (or more) at the exact same time.

12 photons in any contacting configuration is still smaller in radius than the electron, you see. The radius doubles with every stack. So by your logic, does the amount of photons also double? So would an electron then be formed by a cluster of 2,048 photons? Is the proton then actually just a cluster of 32,768 photons? Are you adding a photon to each photon in the spin cluster to achieve the next stacked spin level?

Airman. Sorry, I can’t follow that, especially when I hear you attribute to me “by my logic” something I fail to understand.

A general question back to you, why should there be a problem allowing photons to occupy nested spin positions?

Jared. What "glues" them all together? Gravity at this level isn't tremendously powerful, but wouldn't that cause orbits and not a "gluing" effect?Airman. Cr6 provided an excellent paper which answers those questions at length, Gravity at the Quantum Levelhttp://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html, good find -thanks for the re-read.

Jared, please don’t confuse gravitational attraction and gravitational electron or proton orbits. Photons don’t orbit. Gravity is strictly a function of size, it exists at all scales. Gravity at the photon scale is strong enough to hold photons together. Charge emission has a big drop off between the photon and electron scales, where the relative size of the photons are much greater.

Thanks for the feedback. I hope I’ve answered you questions to your satisfaction. Please repeat any I've missed. Here's hoping for continued discussion..

Honestly, you haven't answered a single question to my satisfaction, either Nevyn's or mine.

I don't consider this a viable, practical, or physical alternative to stacked spins. It negates stacked spins. And as I stated which you did not address at all, photons are not "charged particles" either in the mainstream or in Mathisian theory.

I agree with Nevyn that a high-energy high-spin photon such as an X-ray might scoop up a few other photons here and there and redirect them, but otherwise photons have never demonstrated an emission of charge. I urge you to find any example of the photon doing so.

The neutrino example Mathis gives us is as close as it gets and still very far away, because in that example Miles is just stating that photons can travel near or alongside each other on relatively parallel vectors. At no point has he said, that I'm aware of, that photons would glue themselves together.

I'm sorry you can't follow the math here, so I'll try to break it down further sometime, but you're basically proposing that a 12-spin "electron" would consist of 2,048 photons in cluster and that a 16-spin "proton" would consist of 32,768 photons in cluster. Whether we agree that 12 spins is an electron or 16 a proton isn't relevant; that's the math you're proposing here. Those are big numbers but not huge, but I urge you to think about 32,768 photons magically glued together acting in tandem without any distortion of shape or vector and see how that goes.

.Jared. Honestly, you haven't answered a single question to my satisfaction, either Nevyn's or mine.Airman. Honestly, I’m trying. You (and Nevyn) are a tough crowd.

Jared. I don't consider this a viable, practical, or physical alternative to stacked spins. It negates stacked spins. Airman. This is intended to be a legitimate discussion topic and we are entitled to our opinions. I would urge you to not jump to conclusions, or at least let me catch up.

In the “Life of a Photon” thread http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t475p25-animation-idea-the-life-of-a-photon#3905,you asked, "...but is it correct? Do those motions look proper, realistic, or even possible?" ‘It’ being your vimeo animation of a b-photon transcending spin levels. Of course the basis of your vimeo is Nevyn’s stacked spin model. If your question was - does the vimeo follow Nevyn’s model? Then I remember my previous answer was – “I think that last one's the best yet” – along with a critical comment or two.

If, on the other hand, you meant - is Nevyn’s model correct? Then I must say - no, I don’t think so. No big secret, I voiced my main objection - How can you model a charged particle without charge? – over a year ago. You were in the discussion. It should come as no surprise that I feel even more so today. If you were deliberately provoking me, thanks. Whether my proposal - Add Charge to Stacked Spins - is right or wrong, the right thing to do was to start this thread and ‘formally’ identify my concern. Note that I also wished to avoid disrupting your thread.

I am not here to negate Stacked Spins, but to charge them.

Jared. And as I stated which you did not address at all, photons are not "charged particles" either in the mainstream or in Mathisian theory. Airman. I certainly have a lot to learn about Mathisian Theory. Unless I’m mistaken, I’d prefer the term Charge Field myself, less spooky.

I agree, photons are not charged particles – they are simply charge. A1 photons do not emit charge. All charged particles are made up of A1 photons. The point of this thread is to address charge and charged particles starting at the photon scale. There’s a problem in the fact that charged particles smaller than the electron are usually referred to as photons, so I’ve tried to use the term charged particle, high or low spin level or the particle’s name – i.e. AX.

Do we agree that all charged particles, not just electrons and protons, receive incoming photons from the field? We know that electrons and protons emit charge. It’s only logical to assume they emit charge at the same rate at which they receive charge from the field. The same should be true for all charged particles. I’ve given a detailed answer of what I believe results if one photon too many arrives from the field to collide with the AX. That change-out of photons constitutes charge recycling at the AX level, proof that the AX is a charged particle – made up of photons.

Jared. I agree with Nevyn that a high-energy high-spin photon such as an X-ray might scoop up a few other photons here and there and redirect them, but otherwise photons have never demonstrated an emission of charge. I urge you to find any example of the photon doing so. Airman. That’s a good example. If an x-ray scoops up a few photons here or there, and it was already at full charge density, then the x-ray must emit a few photons. That is charge recycling, the proof of charge emission you asked for. The x-ray is a charged particle which emits charge as it receives charge.

Jared. The neutrino example Mathis gives us is as close as it gets and still very far away, because in that example Miles is just stating that photons can travel near or alongside each other on relatively parallel vectors. At no point has he said, that I'm aware of, that photons would glue themselves together.Airman. I’m using the fact that gravity at the photon scale can hold two photons in contact in a spin loop indefinitely, no glue required.

Like the neutrinos example, I suppose two nearby A1 photons traveling in the same direction will ‘expand at the rate of gravity’ - they will appear to approach each other gravitationally until they come into contact. There are no emissions to prevent them from doing so. If the contact is pole-to-pole, I imagine the photons may remain in contact indefinitely – that is, until disturbed by an incoming photon. If the contact point involves either of the photons’ equators, I believe the two photons will interact in some way and they will not remain in contact. Of course those two ‘contact’ cases are not the same as two photons sharing an AX spin.

Jared. I'm sorry you can't follow the math here, so I'll try to break it down further sometime, but you're basically proposing that a 12-spin "electron" would consist of 2,048 photons in cluster and that a 16-spin "proton" would consist of 32,768 photons in cluster. Whether we agree that 12 spins is an electron or 16 a proton isn't relevant; that's the math you're proposing here. Those are big numbers but not huge, but I urge you to think about 32,768 photons magically glued together acting in tandem without any distortion of shape or vector and see how that goes.Airman. I’d love to model 32,768 photons in nested spins, but I don’t want to give Nevyn any more work. To be completely honest, I’d rather be working on http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t476-possible-charged-particle-field, and I already need his cooperation as it is.

Please note that even before your most recent post, I indicated gravity could hold photons together. Cr6 offered a perfectly appropriate reference, http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html (thanks again Cr6). Gravity is a function of size and it exists at all scales – including the photon. The charge field 'falls off' near the photon scale. Despite the fact that the photon’s gravitational field is ridiculously low, photons have no emissions to prevent gravity from bringing them together - under the right circumstances. Apparently you’ve convinced yourself otherwise. Your repeated use of “glue” is clearly sarcasm; “sorry you can’t follow the math” is a slur. I'll leave it at that.

I believe all spin levels should contain spinning charge photons. At which time the charged particle achieves a maximum charge density. Gravity plays a part inside each spin level, but I would argue that the motion of the spin levels are what actually holds the charged particle together. I suspect any loose photons present will be quickly ejected. As an incoming density of photons impact and overfill the charged particle with photons, an equivalent number of photons must be emitted or channeled.

Yes, there are large numbers of photons present in large charged particles. How is that an argument for or against my proposal? I suppose it means that a single well placed energetic A1 b-photon is very unlikely to add or subtract spin levels to or from larger charged particles..

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm sorry you can't follow the math here, so I'll try to break it down further sometime...

That is not a slur. You claimed it, not me. I was stating that I felt sorrow that you couldn't follow the math.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I’m using the fact that gravity at the photon scale can hold two photons in contact in a spin loop indefinitely, no glue required.

That is not a fact at all. First, we've never witnessed this event, directly or indirectly. Second, two photons colliding due to their expansion or gravity would collide, causing a rebound force of some intensity or other. What's far more likely is that they would "orbit" each other, at least initially. Again, at the A1-X1 transition, we would have an incoming photon being "bent" around our initial photon to some degree, depending on velocity and vector. And that's the problem - these velocities are as high as they can possibly be, already. So any collision at any vector would redirect both, and at these speeds they're already negating gravity's acceleration by a huge margin.

I'll try to make a video demonstrating that last part, maybe it will help?

LongtimeAirman wrote:The x-ray is a charged particle which emits charge as it receives charge.

Except it's not a charged particle, and we've never witnessed an x-ray level photon emitting other photons. Not in chambers, not in x-ray photography, and not in space. When I said that it's possible an x-ray could scoop up some other photons I was conceding that it's possible an x-ray could scoop up some other photons, not that they do or will do so inherently. We've never seen that occur so it's a huge stretch.

I think my main issue with your theory is that it would require thousands of photons to cling together somehow in clusters, but in experiment we don't see that. A neutron doesn't "decay" into 32,768 photons, it "decays" into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino, in the mainstream depiction. Of course Mathis fixes that for us:

Mathis wrote:B-photons have wavelength and therefore spin just like any other particle. In this simplified analysis, we will look only at its outermost or z-spin, which we will define as clockwise.

Can we imagine any blocking at this point? No. In order to block anything with end-over-end spin, the particle would have to outrun its own emission. Since we assume the emission speed is c, this is an impossibility. Can we imagine any difference in +x or -x, that is, in clockwise end-over-end versus counter-clockwise end-over-end? No. There is no way that chirality could cause a mechanical difference at this point. Now we continue to the next level of spin. We encounter a larger end-over-end spin, of magnitude 4, in the y-plane. Can we imagine any blocking here? Again, no. So let us continue. We proceed to the next spin level, of magnitude 8, orthogonal to the others and outside their gyroscopic influence. Can we imagine any blocking here? Yes!

...and...

Mathis wrote:Why does it decay into a proton and an electron, with a bit of energy left over? Well, study the composition of the neutron and proton: all you have to do is switch the z-spin to make one into the other. So the neutron does not decay at all. No, it gets hit. It doesn’t emit the electron, it gets hit by a positron in a glancing blow, reversing the z-spin of the neutron. The collision also reverses the z-spin of the positron, turning it into an electron.

So we don't have 32,768 photons reversing their spin, we have just one. We don't have another 2,048 photons reversing in that positron, we have just one.

It's easy to visualize and synthesize and model a single photon spin reversal, but how would all those photons proposed in your model reverse at the same time from one collision? Shouldn't we see photons scattering every which way?

And back to the recursive motion of higher stacked spins that tend to "scoop" up charge - in your model, they must exchange charge AND scoop it up.

It seems both needlessly complex and extremely gritty to me. I can visualize and simulate a photon moving through stacked spins to the point where its motion becomes recursive, but once you start clustering them then the centrifugal force alone would trump gravity. They would toss each other away.

.I see a problem with Stacked Spins, it cannot account for charge recycling. So rather than just complain, I provided a possible solution, in keeping with my understanding of the charge field. You believe my proposal involves too many photons, and they cannot possibly remain together.

You may or may not be correct.

How would you propose adding charge to Stacked Spins? Or do you not see that as a problem? .

As usual, it's "crap in, crap out" on my part, because if my parameters are wrong then it doesn't mean the physics is right. Or vice-versa. Our variables are gravity itself (left alone here; Maya's nParticles are handling the gravity naturally as Newton fields expressed via mass, which we know isn't correct as a theory but as an expression of motion it is correct), impulse motion, and impulse spin and chirality (direction, clockwise or counter).

The other hidden variables are friction, stickyness, bounciness, dampening, and the resolution of the particles themselves. So in this case I used NURBS, not polygon spheres, which means the spheres are mathematically accurate and have no polygons; they are perfect spheres, inside Maya. So only the friction, dampening, bounciness, and dampening affect how they "grip" or contact each other. There are no polygon edges to "catch" each other on as a sort of tooth or gear, is what I mean. We have no idea what a photon looks like at this level so I'm still using a sphere to represent it, as that seems better than a polyhedron. Stickyness and bounciness are zero, dampening and friction are .001.

I only keyframed the camera here to follow our photons. All other motions are internal nDynamic physics, according to the inputs I listed above. So it may or may not be very accurate and/or precise - but that's all just a disclaimer.

We see in every case, the particles repel each other due to their spin. Every case but the first, which has no spin impulse at all - meaning no reason the particles would "stack" or spin along X1. This is the only vector (parallel) and spin-state where two identical, incompressible particles can "stick" together via gravity. Any other vector and we have a velocity-driven collision that easily trumps gravity at this scale.

Any contact between two bodies must account for spin, as you can see. Between two same-mass, same spin bodies of no compressibility we should expect these spins (at light speed) to easily trump gravity. Imparting that much motion to another body with identical energy is a simple expression of Newton's Third Law. An equal and opposite reaction.

I hope this helps, or at least helps make my assertions and counterpoints make more sense. As always we need not agree, this is just our science my friend.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.I see a problem with Stacked Spins, it cannot account for charge recycling. ...How would you propose adding charge to Stacked Spins? Or do you not see that as a problem? .

I would propose it the same way Miles has. As a photon reaches a certain radius moving up the stacked spin levels (to the electron, allegedly), its motion becomes much more recursive compared to its linear motion at light speed. It's spinning backwards relative to c enough that it creates a "scooping" effect by bouncing B-photons around inside it, since it's large enough at this radius to have thousands or millions of these tiny B-photons within its volume.

The motion of this "charged" electron is wide enough and fast enough to "stir" the ambient charge field, directing its flow by churning and bouncing those tiny B-photons about. If we say this electron is "swimming in charge" as an analogy, it's flailing about in its multi-tiered spins enough to create a sort of vortex in the charge field, a spasming of photons that then tend to enter the electron's volume more often at the poles, where the electron's spins position it far less often, and emit more often out towards the equator since that's where the electron's spin positions would push them most often.

(When I get to this level in my latest animation, hopefully this will become even clearer)

I should also say that when I get to this level, if the motions don't work and the churning channeling effect is not reproducable, assuming my animation is correct, then it seems like a good reason to question this theory much more tightly. My animations aren't proof of anything, just demonstrations of ideas - as I understand them.

Airman wrote:Nevyn, as you and I know, I’ve objected to your stacked spin model many times, also please know I am not attacking you. For the record, we all know your stacked spin apps are awesome sauce – professional, well-made simulations https://www.nevyns-lab.com,https://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/spin-apps.php. I acknowledge and apologize for all the grief I’ve no doubt given you on this subject.

No worries here, Airman. I don't take it personally or even see it as an attack. I just see it as the search for knowledge and understanding. We all have to find our own way through it. We all have different backgrounds and knowledge and will see things differently from each other. That is a strength for us as a group. What I miss, you may see, and I hope anyone who does see something wrong will have the strength to say it. Even if I disagree with them.

From your responses above, I think there is some confusion around the term 'recycling'. When I read that I immediately think 'charged', but I am not convinced that is what you mean by it in this context and I am going to try and differentiate the two now and clear at least some of this up, or muddy the waters a bit more.

We are starting to look closely at the boundary between charged and non-charged particles, so it is beneficial to describe the differences. Up to this point, it has been sufficient to just talk about charge and recycling as the same thing or, if we were being a little bit more careful, we might call recycling the mechanism of charge but they are still close enough to be considered synonyms. Not so anymore!

You have made me see that there is more to being called 'charged' than I was thinking before. A charged particle is not charged because it knocks a few photons around, but because it knocks enough photons around to change its local environment. It has to have a large charge rate. For the proton this is 19 times its own mass every second. Is it also 19 for an electron? That is, does the electron emit 19 times its own mass? It doesn't really matter right now, but it must be something close.

That is what I meant by an x-ray might be able to recycle a little bit, but not enough to be considered charged. I can see it knocking a few photons around but nothing coherent like an electron or proton. More random collisions but the rate of collision is getting close to the point of being charged.

I still think there is a distinct difference between a basic collision and charge recycling. When photons collide, they both change direction and on the rare occasion, they gain/lose a spin. Recycling means the photons are moving through a larger particle. Maybe that is not precise enough. They are being redirected, just like a basic collision, but enough of them are being redirected, within a certain amount of time, that it creates a field. The field has a kind of structure of its own, separate from the particle that creates it.

A key difference is the size of the particles in collision. Charge emission requires a large size difference. Basic collisions do not. Actually, they require a very small difference or none at all. While 2 photons colliding will change the direction of both particles, a single photon colliding with a proton is not going to change the proton much at all. The charged particles can hold themselves steady with respect to the charge around it, even in spite of that charge, to a certain extent.

Somewhere above, you made a comment that made me think that you were saying recycling but really meaning more basic collisions. That led me to the thoughts above which I haven't fleshed out before. Some of the ideas were in my bag of tricks, but I had not seen some of the differences. There may be more and I'm not sure I have my thoughts straight even now.

I still don't see how this could work though. A clump of photons doesn't create the charge profile of a charged particle. How does it create the N/S poles? How does it create an equator? How could charge move through the center of a proton so that atoms can have through-charge channels? With the current stacked spin model, you can clearly see a hole through the center of a proton and you can see that the BPhoton spends a lot of time around the equator and none at the poles. But a clump of photons has none of that.

I don't think that gravity can be used in this way. It can certainly move photons together, as you describe, but I don't think that it is strong enough to hold them together and be considered a new particle. If it was that strong, then the entire universe would just be one big particle. What is stopping all photons from just clumping together? Why would the clumping stop at the proton? Being a larger particle, it should have more gravity, not less.

I also don't understand how they could clump together except by initially having the same direction of travel. If they could clump, then how does it survive a collision with another photon? You have to have an extremely strong gravitational field for that, but then we are back to a single universal particle because nothing could overcome that gravity.

I would like to say that my questions are made to push you deeper into this, not to scare you away or to make you agree with me. There may be other ways to explain this stuff than Miles has given us so far and we won't find them unless we confront the concepts and see what else we might be able to come up with.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.I see a problem with Stacked Spins, it cannot account for charge recycling. So rather than just complain, I provided a possible solution, in keeping with my understanding of the charge field. You believe my proposal involves too many photons, and they cannot possibly remain together.

You may or may not be correct.

How would you propose adding charge to Stacked Spins? Or do you not see that as a problem? .

I don't see why this is a problem. Recycling is just collisions. However, the results of those collisions creates a coherent field. From the perspective of a single charge photon, it is just a collision like any other. It will be directed to a new direction. From the perspective of a charged particle, it is lots of collisions. Enough to emit its own mass every second. The spin paths shown by SpinSim show the equatorial and polar regions as well as a hole through the center for through-charge. I can look at that and see how the charge photons will be redirected to the equator and how the poles will have no emission and show an apparent attraction.

Why haven't I added recycling to SpinSim? Mostly because it requires a collision model that I don't have but also because SpinSim is only trying to show the path, not the particle. Your new project is a step down the path to a collision model. I have had thoughts about it in the past, but you have driven me to dive deeper into it. It is not easy, but certainly worth while. By creating an abstraction of the emission of a charged particle, I will hopefully be able to see how to do it more precisely. Then I can think about adding in to a new app that is SpinSim + Collisions.

.Airman wrote. I believe all spin levels should contain spinning charge photons. At which time the charged particle achieves a maximum charge density. Gravity plays a part inside each spin level, but I would argue that the motion of the spin levels are what actually holds the charged particle together.

Jared wrote. Any contact between two bodies must account for spin, as you can see. Between two same-mass, same spin bodies of no compressibility we should expect these spins (at light speed) to easily trump gravity. Imparting that much motion to another body with identical energy is a simple expression of Newton's Third Law. An equal and opposite reaction.

I hope this helps, or at least helps make my assertions and counterpoints make more sense. As always we need not agree, this is just our science my friend.

Nevyn wrote. Why haven't I added recycling to SpinSim? Mostly because it requires a collision model that I don't have but also because SpinSim is only trying to show the path, not the particle. Your new project is a step down the path to a collision model.

Airman. Thank you, my friends. As the most famous man in the world might say, have a Dos Equis.

Back to work.

Yes, I assume as fact - for sake of discussion – that photons can remain in sustained polar contact in an AX. And there may be sustained or momentary contact between photons in larger spin loops.

Good demonstration - including the built-in physics - showing me what we’re up against Jared, that is - the unlikelihood of photons remaining in contact. I also liked the quote.

Miles wrote. … We proceed to the next spin level, of magnitude 8, orthogonal to the others and outside their gyroscopic influence. Can we imagine any blocking here? Yes!

Airman. The motion of A1s through the particle is more important than gravity.

To end on a high note – I look forward to the possibility of using the stacked spin framework to create an AX,Y,Z spinner. Maybe drop photons inside. I know it might get real complicated, real fast so I don’t expect any commitments. I just think a simple demo like that might make it clear to everyone what we’re up against, as well as shut me up..

So I sure hope you don't feel that way. And I sincerely hope that if you spot errors or inaccuracies in my shit you'd call me out too! That's the whole point of this small crew or "community". To keep each other honest and open, both to ourselves and to new ideas.

We needn't agree, and honest dissent is necessary if we're to get anywhere useful. I don't think I'd spend much time working towards your model until I meet my goals with Miles/Nevyn's ideas, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't proceed however you feel is right. Have at it!

This is why I recommended learning to program when you expressed interest. Sometimes, only you know what you want things to do, so you have to get in and build it yourself. Writing the code can also help you to see that some ideas just don't work. The vectors don't play out well, or the forces just aren't available, etc. It really makes you look deeper into what you are trying to implement. Of course, the opposite can also happen and you lose site of reality because you are so deep in your own code. Everything is a balance.